Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anythingyouwant (talk | contribs) at 17:03, 20 September 2007 (→Vulgar: Please do not post at my talk page, KC.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1: Beginning of Time to 14 March 2007.

Archive 2: 14 March 2007 to 14 May 2007.

Archive 3: 14 May 2007 to 15 June 2007.

Archive 4: 15 June 2007 to 11 September 2007.

Freddie

Thanks for the invite, but I believe you misunderstood what I had said. The wrong version refers to an essay on meta, found at m:The Wrong Version. When there are sides in a debate, you are bound to protect the "wrong version" from one side's perspective. It's a lose, lose situation. No matter what, when a sysop protects a page during a content dispute, it is the "wrong version". My comment was thus referring to this idea, and I was not expressing my opinion that the version was in fact, wrong. But thanks again for bringing it up, and I might just chime in when I get some time.-Andrew c  04:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Photos

I imagine it has something to do with Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical)#Loads_of_images_.28particularly_flag_images.29_not_showing. There is a bug where some images from commons are not showing, and the developers know about it and are working on it. Hopefully, it will be cleared up soon enough. Hope this helps.-Andrew c  17:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Just found out purging the image pages over on commons (WP:PURGE) gets them to show (at least on my computer). Not sure if it's necessary to do this though if another solution is already under works.-Andrew c  17:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Pregnancy

Sorry, our revs got crossed. ... Kenosis 18:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That talk page history is awfully long for today - Ferrylodge, do you have a dif or preferably several of Photo modifying and/or deleting posts? That's completely unacceptable. Thanks - leave here, I have your page on watch, or leave on my talk page. KillerChihuahua 18:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

He deleted my post here. After I put it back, he changed my section title.Ferrylodge 18:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, renaming the section is acceptable, if not being done in an insulting, disruptive manner - for brevity or clarity or easier navigation. But deleting someone else's posts (except on one's own talk page) is a complete no-no in almost all cases. Your edit was not a blatant personal attack nor was it silly vandalism, which are the usual exceptions. I've left a warning on Photo's talk page. Thanks much for the diff, that history was daunting to look at and I had no idea where to start. KillerChihuahua 19:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Article in the Washington Post

It was interesting to read about you in the Washington Post this morning. It sounds much like the person I now know to be Ferrylodge. However, you might like to ask them to clarify if you're a man or a woman. As in, the statement currently reads, "and another editor who goes only by Ferrylodge, a Republican and a Thompson supporter. (He recently gave the former Tennessee senator a $100 donation.)... She is, though she's not yet sure who she will support." . Keep up the good work. The Evil Spartan 18:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we talk about the "health" effects of abortion on the fetus???

???LCP 20:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Your accusation of wikistalking

Ferrylodge, your accusation here is way out of line, and unacceptable. You don't own Mother or any other article, nor do you have the market cornered on interest in the subject. Perhaps you should read the section on Wikistalking that you pointed me to - and then tell me just how I had harassed you or disrupted anything by making one comment on the talk page in support of what I believe to be another editor's correct criticism of a section of the article. And please don't tell me how long that wording has been in the article - that doesn't mean it is right. I think you owe me an apology - but if you think you're right, I suggest you make your accusation in a more formal way, because innuendo is not going to cut it. Tvoz |talk 05:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not making accusations. Some users are unaware that it is bad form to follow other users around. If you are following me around (from Fred Thompson to abortion to mother), then I would kindly ask you to please stop. However, if it is merely a bizarre coincidence, then we can leave it at that. If you want to continue this discussion, please do it at the article talk pages. Thanks.Ferrylodge 13:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's only bad form if one is doing it to harass. It's perfectly OK, for instance, to check a vandal's contribs and go around correcting them. Or similar cases where one suspects that a particular user's edits are suspect and need another eye. And one way one might get that suspicion is by tangling with them on one page. So long as the edits one makes after following them around are valid, it's not wikistalking. -- Zsero 16:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Zsero - that is correct. And Ferrylodge, I think you know that I am a very experienced editor with over 7500 edits, and I know Misplaced Pages policy, so don't be disingenuous. I'm continuing this conversation here because it isn't germane to the article talk page. Pointing someone to a policy page and suggesting they read it is certainly implying an accusation. I'll continue to edit whatever pages I please, and having seen what I and several other editors have identified as appearing to be POV-pushing, it's possible that you'll see me editing other pages that you also edit, and commenting on their talk pages, to try to rein it in. There's been no disruption or harassment on my part - disagreeing with someone's POV is not harassment. There's policy on that too - you might look at it. Tvoz |talk 18:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As might you.Ferrylodge 12:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Reverts: , , , . MastCell 16:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=original unblock reason |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I request unblock. The last two reverts are very different from the first two. The last two edited the lede to INCLUDE the word "uterus" in the lede. The first two edits edited the lede to EXCLUDE the word "uterus" from the lede. That is what the controversy was all about: whether the lede should include the word "uterus". The lede has included the word "womb" for years.

I would also like to add that KillerChihuahua has been attacking me personally and harassing me all day today. At the abortion article today, she asserted that my words are "bullshit". At the pregnancy article today, she suggested that I am "naive and disingenuous." At the Stillbirth article today, she said that I was trying to insert a "vulgar" word into the article. It astounds me that an admin can get away with such incivility, and I find it very difficult to respond in a construictive way to her personal attacks.

More recently, at the Stillbirth article, she sais that I am a "spammer". Actually, the "spam" to which she referred was a list of definitions of the word "womb" from reliable sources, and I had not previously listed those definitions (or any of them) anywhere else, prior to listing them in ther Stillbirth article.

Instead of responding intelligently and civilly to those definitions, she ignored them, disparaged them as "spamming", continue her edit-war against the word "womb" in all pregnancy-related articles.

I did not violate 3RR here. The third and fourth cited edits were reverting to a lede that included KillerChihuahua's preferred term "uterus". The first and second edits reverted to a version of the article that did not include KillerChihuahua's preferred term "uterus."Ferrylodge 17:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock